KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The Appeal Board’s authority is limited.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 10-06391.a1
DATE: 02/03/2012
DATE: February 3, 2012
In Re:
-------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 10-06391
APPEAL BOARD SUMMARY DISPOSITION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On March 10, 2011, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of
the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations),
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On
November 21, 2011, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Rita C. O’Brien denied Applicant’s
request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and
E3.1.30.
Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of specific harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Rather, it contains only a general statement that since he has been employed for the last year,
he has put plans in place to correct his financial problems.
The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing
party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  Applicant has not made an allegation of
harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a
security clearance is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan     
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin             
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields             
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board